Sales taxes are, by their very nature, regressive. While the "FairTax" gives a rebate for lower income people, analysis indicates that the middle class would pay proportionately more than the rich. Hence it is regressive, contrary to your claim.

The "Fair Tax" along with the "Clean Sky Initiative" that gave a pass to many polluters, the ""Healthy Forrest Initiative" that increased clearcutting, and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" are bits of verbal jiggrery-pokery that are nothing but ill crafted lies.

Analysis by whom Mr Shallit? An uber-leftist hack with an axe to grind? Regressive too huh? Since the poor use the most services, by their very nature, perhaps they should pay at least something in. Alas, that rebate, a prebate actually, you mention (and ignorantly dismiss) absolves them completely from any tax liability. I invite the readers to go to

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

and see for themselves.Perhaps if they aren't completely brainwashed yet or at least have two brain cells to rub together, they'll get on board with getting the feds out of our wallets and business. I know that it is tough for socialists to not steal money but maybe, just maybe, they'll see the light. I can't stand Huckabee by the way, as I can't stand all fundies but I can't abide leftist liars any better.

Jason (I'd use my last name but experience has shown me that "tolerant" leftist threaten critics and their families far too easily and with impunity)

The analysis I refer to was done by factcheck.org. Whether it is "uber-leftist" or not I leave to others to judge. Of course, it doesn't matter what their point of view is; what matters is if their analysis is correct. You conveniently omitted addressing my point, which is that the analysis shows the rich would benefit at the expense of the middle class.

Well Mr.Shallit, I wasn't referring to you in specific about threats..just your minions and other assorted cowards that follow your type of jibberish. Laugh at crackpots hmmmm?...well it looks to be the only exercise you do. Fact check.org? I tend to like them for cursory investigations...but look through their contributors and tell me which of them have degrees in economics or any qulifications whatsoever to comment intelligently on something as complex as tax policy? They're all journalists and the like...and any monkey can get a degree in journalism...the American press corp is proof of that. The fairtax people are business people and economists so I know that means they don't know a thing about taxes...touche, you got me.

Yes...now to your point I didn't address..it was so obtuse I didn't think you meant it. Follow along now...the poor - no $$$ in taxes at all because of the prebate....the rich....whatever $$ amount the greedy bastards spend on yachts and other things they shouldn't have, gets taxed.

So how does it benefit the rich more? They pay in, the poor get a check. Once again, touche.

But you do have a good idea Jeff...may I call you Jeff?..dear readers, go to http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html and then to fairtax.org and decide for yourselves. See Jeff how I include links...makes things easier for people to investigate.

There was an interesting analysis of Fairtax at The New Republic (yes, I've seen the retaliation on townhall.com) that vaguely links it to Scientology in the following sense: Scientologists tried to infiltrate and/or dissolve the IRS prior to getting their religious organization status. Pushing a national sales tax was one approach to trying to get rid of the IRS. Now, there is no specific relationship with Fairtax, per se, but I still find it an amusing look at the kinds of dirty tricks that Church of Scientology has engaged in.

The richer you are, the less of your income you spend, and the more of it you get to keep. Since middle class people spend almost 100% of what they make, they will pay taxes on almost 1005 of their income. Rich people can have an extremely comfortable life while spending a tiny fraction of what they "earn", so all the rest of their income will be tax-free.

"Follow along now...the poor - no $$$ in taxes at all because of the prebate....the rich....whatever $$ amount the greedy bastards spend on yachts and other things they shouldn't have, gets taxed."

Follow me now: the poor != the middle-class. The middle-class pays disproportionately more under the plan. The point is that it is difficult to sustain a large middle-class with a regressive tax-policy.

Man, that bit about "Obama lied about being a professor" is a tad pathetic. I never heard it before just now. So I googled it for a few minutes. I couldn't find a reference to him calling himself a professor. And it looks like he is a very well respected senior lecturer. For 10 years. Can you tell me the difference between a senior lecturer and a professor? Because his students can't seem to -- they seem to pretty consistently call him "Professor Obama". And all the references I can find from other faculty refer to him as "Professor Obama" as well, even at his own school, or sometimes "law professor", or something similar. I think I'd chalk this issue up to:

1 - Obama himself certainly knows the difference and probably never uses the word "professor", or only in very casual settings with the meaning of "someone who works at and teaches at a university". I.e. not on a resume, or in any kind of written document.

2 - Hardly anyone else likely knows the difference, including his own campaign staff, so the word would quite possibly end up in campaign literature now and then.